§ 3.9 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are proposing to change the self-employed status of individual long-term carers looking after severely disabled people in their homes.
§ Lord Sainsbury of TurvilleMy Lords, the Government are not proposing to change the status of long-term carers. Whether a carer is self-employed for tax or employment law purposes depends on the terms and conditions on which he or she is engaged and works.
Lord Campbell of CroyMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I understand that proposals of this kind are now the subject of consultation with the organisations concerned. In those consultations, will the Government take into account the fact that many carers in these situations have to work irregular hours and will not easily or suitably be converted into employees of care agencies? Do the Government agree that the most important consideration is that disabled people should not find that they are to be charged a great deal more for the help which they now receive in their homes, rather than in institutions?
§ Lord Sainsbury of TurvilleMy Lords, it may help if I explain what is proposed in the consultation document. The proposal would change the terms of the contractual relationship, whether or not the person in question is self-employed. It would change the party responsible to the worker in relation to entitlements under the minimum wage and the working time directive. It is felt appropriate that that party should be the employment bureau, rather than 937 the individual—the long-term disabled person—so that that person does not have to deal with those issues; they will be dealt with by the employment bureau. That seems to me and, indeed, to Age Concern, to be a step in the right direction.
An issue relating to the payment of VAT arises. By making the employment relationship with the disabled person rather than themselves, a number of employment bureaux have avoided paying VAT. That is an issue of which we are aware, and we are considering it in the consultation process.
§ Baroness Gardner of ParkesMy Lords, is the Minister aware that some years ago your Lordships' House discussed the idea that disabled people themselves should be able to choose how to spend such money? Tying this contract to a bureau would take that privilege of choice away from disabled people.
§ Lord Sainsbury of TurvilleMy Lords, I do not believe that this matter has anything to do with the issue of choice. A person being cared for can choose whether to use an individual, a bureau, or anyone else. We are consulting on the question of whether the employment responsibility in terms of these two specific issues—the minimum wage and the working time directive—rests with the hirer or with the employment bureau; but that does not affect the choice of the long-term disabled.
§ Baroness PitkeathleyMy Lords, does the Minister agree that the terminology causes a problem? The word "carer" has come to be used for the unemployed and unpaid family carer who is the subject of the Government's National Carers' Strategy? Does the Minister also agree that the Government would be well advised to attach the word "paid" or the word "employed" to the word "carer" when noble Lords discuss this subject?
§ Lord Sainsbury of TurvilleMy Lords, I take that point on board. Clearly, in this situation we are talking of paid carers.